This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Under Arizona law, the trial judge could have sentenced Bassett for each count to either life in prison without the possibility of parole or life in prison with the possibility of “release” after 25 years. Arizona had passed a law a decade earlier rendering anyone convicted of homicide, including murder, ineligible for parole.
In late February, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the law from being enforced, noting that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and US Supreme Court precedent place immigration matters under federal jurisdiction. Justice Alito stayed the Fifth Circuit’s order on March 4 without explaining his reasoning.
The bill creates a misdemeanor offense for violation of the statute and a felony crime for multiple offenses. It also empowers state magistrate judges to hear immigration cases and issue removal orders in addition to giving law enforcement the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the law.
DHS had waived the requirements of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and other laws pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Arizona Court Ordered Production of Climate Scientists’ Emails Under Arizona’s Public Records Law.
Ninth Circuit Affirmed Rejection of NEPA Challenges to Immigration Policies. The plaintiffs—identified as environmentalists, environmental groups, natural resource conservation groups, and cattle ranchers—alleged, among other things, that the immigration actions resulted in increased greenhouse gas emissions. United States.
Innovation Law Lab , a challenge to the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to return immigrants seeking asylum to Mexico while they wait for an asylum hearing in U.S. immigration courts. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. California (Feb.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content